State of the World Address.

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Prequel to my "State of the World Address".

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Sep 04, 2016 4:55 am

The following may serve as an introduction to my OP and its sequels (now four in total)--though it may itself, in turn, require an introduction which I will then supply in due time.

::

1.

Below average intelligence need of course not necessarily mean stupid. Relatively stupid, perhaps, but modern humanism considers everyone to have a pretty high intelligence: this is the basis of "universal human dignity". But if this is not necessarily at hand, it may be wiser to establish a tradition for the upkeep of this intelligence. A foundation of men who are entrusted with versing themselves in the meaning (sense!) of that dignity.

"Intelligence" here does not have the sense as in "Central Intelligence Agency"--mere information. It means understanding, and especially the understanding of understanding. Self-awareness or, as Cahoone formulates it in his lecture on Heidegger's _Being and Time_, "letting-oneself-come-toward-oneself in having-been as making-entities-present". But Picht, in his speech on Nietzsche, argues that Aristotle's noeseos noesis is really poieseos poiesis, the figmenting of figmenting, thinking thinking itself--that is, making phenomena appear making itself appear. Nietzsche insists that this is a forcing of oneself. But this forcing oneself does not spring from oneself, that is, it does not come from nothing. This tyrannical will is no _free_ will. It is the result of one's environment in the profound sense that one's environment as well as one's self is the result--and never the end result--of a practically unsurveyable process. What metaphysics is is the will to survey that process "in theory", that is, in the mind's eye, nay the mind's senses. This already suggests that it's a modest kind of person who lets her own history be as short as 6000 human years. She leaves the rest to God--but God is represented by the male, who after all claimed to speak for God. Thus in the Manu Samhita it's said: "Punishment is (in reality) the king (and) the male", which is to say 'compared with him all others are (weak) women.'

"But where Punishment with a black hue and red eyes stalks about, destroying sinners, there the subjects are not disturbed, provided that he who inflicts it discerns well." (_The Laws of Manu_, Bühler trans., 7:25; 17.)

Punishment is none other than Agni, Fire:

"But when, great god, thine awful anger glows,
And thou revealest thy destroying force,
All creatures flee before thy furious course,
As hosts are chased by overpowering foes.

"Thou levelest all thou touchest; forests vast
Thou shear'st, like beards which barber's razor shaves.
Thy wind-driven flames roar loud as ocean's waves,
And all thy track is black when thou hast past." (Muir trans.)

What the Nietzschean philosopher aims at is to be the recurrence of that god, Bhairava, the fiercest human form of Shiva known to man. With the oblong object peculiar to him, he warns man to return to his historical duties "or else!" That the object peculiar to him is not the sword should be no surprise. That it's not the pen--or, in my case, the keyboard, which I wield ineptly enough--may need to be spelled out, however. It's not an oblong object. It's not an object at all, but the openness, the vastness, of our minds. That openness now paradoxically turns against modern openness, by going beyond the prevalent limitedness of that openness which is due to spiritual sloth.--

I always question myself, I even question whether I've questioned myself enough. But on the other hand, I will question myself for having questioned myself too much--and won't just question myself. The Democratic movement is still a force to be reckoned with, do not make yourself any illusions. The fact that the Trump-Clinton war is a neck-a-neck race suffices to illustrate this. And yet here I am, writing this because it apparently _doesn't_ suffice to illustrate this to many. It's apt that the Democratic side be represented by a woman, and not in the least because it's such a "manly" woman, such an Islamic or, if one has a nose for such things (as good cynics often have even more than philosophers, those who most follow their noses--which is a cryptic clue), a _Byzantine_ woman... Trump represents the side which supposedly hears the individual, the common man, the little man. But his victory, in turn, will represent the official statement of fact that Western democracy has degenerated into an ochlocracy, a mob rule. Again, the fact that it's a neck-a-neck race tells us quite clearly that that is imminent. Hillary represents the voice of "democracy in practice", which the Dutch Nietzschean Menno ter Braak defended against impending Nazism in 1930s Holland: failing and thereby succeeding democracy, democracy with its necessarily arising and arisen elites! For democracy is, in its conception, supposed to be the universal aristocracy, in which everyone is an aristocrat--that is, obliged by his freedom to treat everyone in a noble manner. But what is noble about the man in the street who votes for Trump, or Wilders in the Netherlands (see my "Nietzsche Contra Wilders" essay), Brexit in the UK, etc. etc.? It's supposedly that he dares say it. And in the street, that soon means defending it against people who would beat you up for it--in the first place by an attitude that suggests you're ready and indeed more than willing to fight people off. I sometimes do that, too. I always have an attitude, except when I feel secure in the vehemence of my attitude, which is most of the time; and then, I adhere to the rules, if not to the unwritten ones, then certainly to many that I've unwittingly written myself (I have an innate susceptibility to paranoia). Now the paradox and the irony is that both parties seem to want the same thing: a Democratic Republic. Surely making America great again must mean making it a Democratic Republic again. But what Americans are learning the hard way is that the meanings of "Democracy" and "Republic" change over time. It was only in the twentieth century that "democracy" changed so as to have voting include women. And likewise, it is with continuing immigration that the Public Thing (res publica), "that thing of ours, we the people", has changed to include non-White Protestants--first Catholics (Irish and Italian, and now Latino), and now even Muslims. To Protestants, every man is his own priest, and this led to modern Humanism where every man decides for himself what religion he practices. But modern Humanism turns into postmodernism--which is no longer Humanism, no longer concerned especially with human beings, or homo sapiens--as it realises that modern Humanism, too, is a religion--a paradoxical, secular religion. It is this secular religion which both parties claim to represent.

In fact, they really only represent it _together_. Trump represents the logical consequence of the call for the ideal democracy: fascism as tyranny in the literal sense, empowered by an angry mob. Hillary represents the logical consequence of the conservation of imperfect democracy: fascism in the popular sense of the word as bureaucracy and elitism; "corporo-fascism".

What all this calls for is that philosophers become kings: no longer in the Platonic way, as invisible spiritual rulers who compromise with popular religion; but now as visible, physio-logical rulers who will make no compromise, who start the natural human religion, re-ligio, binding man back to nature.

"Knowing the inevitability of masks, Nietzsche chose to weave his own, the mask of a rash truth teller whose unguarded speech would make him seem an immoralist, a devil, the mask of a super-Machiavelli. That mask, and the vehemence with which its terrible contours would be traced by those who took it to be more than a mask, inevitably assigned a task to his friends, advocates bound by the beauty and rigor of his writings to see eventually that the mask masked its opposite, a new teaching on good and bad by something approaching a god." (Lampert, _Nietzsche's Task_, penultimate page.)

Lampert represents the near-godlike, the noble; I on the other hand feel I need to complement him by representing the mask, _manifesting_ the mask, the mask of Dionysos: it is my ambition to manifest the last Man "against Time", the avatar Kalki, who is also the first Man "in Time", the Superman.

"The man 'in Time' can have _any_ aim, with the exception of a disinterested one (which would at once raise him 'above Time'). He himself is always like a blind force of destructive Nature. (That is the reason why so many thoroughly 'bad' characters in literature and in the theatre are so attractive, in their forceful evil.) He has no ideology. Or rather, his ideology is himself, separated from the divine Whole--i.e., it is the disintegration of the Whole (of the universe) for the benefit of himself, and, ultimately, the destruction of himself also, although he does not _know_ it or does not care. And that is the case in every instance. But under certain conditions, when his action takes, in human history, the permanent importance that a great geological cataclysm has in the history of the earth, then, as I said, the man 'in Time' disappears from our sight, and in his place--but still bearing his features,--appears, in all His dramatic majesty, Mahakala, the eternal Destroyer. It is Him Whom we adore in the great lightning individuals such as Genghis Khan--Him; not them. They are only the clay images inhabited by Him for a few brief years. And just as the clay image hides and suggests the invisible God or Goddess--Power everlasting--so does their selfishness both hide and reveal the impersonal purposefulness of Life; the destructive phase of the divine Play, in which already lies the promise of a new dawn to come." (Savitri Devi, _The Lightning and the Sun_, Chapter III.)

2.

I would say the Abrahamic religions have the following human meaning. The story of the Fall represents the fact that, when man obtains knowledge of good and evil, he sees there is no eternal good and evil. This scares him so much that he submits to a good and evil that supposedly comes from the Eternal Himself, or the Eternals Themselves. Why did God supposedly create man as male and female if He made him--_them_--in His own image? But thinking of God as Eternals, as masculine and feminine ones, or a masculine One and a feminine One, would only defer the problem. God must be thought as a He, because He must not be at all like Eve, who first tasted the bitter truth that there is no eternal good and evil. He must not be a philosopher, someone who loves the taste of forbidden fruits. He must not be sinful, sundering the working order of society; he must not be hubristic, overstepping his bounds. He must never lose sight of the Idea of the Good. Because man--that is the problem--is traditionally, nay evolutionarily, the transgressor among the sexes--that is, in relation to woman. He will overstep his bounds in order to save her. It is like woman's relation to her child:

"[H]ow can we understand the so-called wrathful deities, the focus of so many contemplative practices in Tibetan Buddhism? In essence, their awesome appearance expresses the invincible power of compassion.
Imagine a mother whose child was about to be run over by a car. She would not hesitate, or gently say, 'Please move away from the road.' She would immediately grab the child and pull him forcibly to safety. Her act is violent in appearance only. In truth she has saved her child's life." (_Demonic Divine_, Foreword.)

Now what the Nietzschean philosopher is is an Enlighted one, a "Buddha", who comes down from "Nirvana" out of cruelty rather than out of compassion--not in the least out of cruelty against _himself_. He will be the synthesis of Jerusalem and Athens, of Punishment and Blame, taking the blame on himself for the punishment, the whole responsibility which was formerly thought to fall upon God. He shall be the Caesarian philosopher who emerges out of the actual human achievement of the Christ-soul. His self-crucifixion consists in throwing off the cross he's been carrying, in taking command, in willing himself, in insisting that the historical process that's led to him was a good thing, is still a good thing, and may continue to be a good thing. A great thing, in fact. Through Christianity, European man--and the Americas, for example, are really New Europe--has come a long way from traditional societies with their Gods who eclipse their Goddesses. Those Gods usually do so in ways in which their feminine side dims the painfully stark brightness of their masculine side (for instance, in Jewish tradition, the left hand of God covers His right hand). But it's still a God and not a Goddess. If He did not eclipse Her, She would become Kali. That is, Mother Time would swallow man. Against this, then, Rudra lets himself be danced on by Her, worshipping Her in secret while subduing Her, taking the epithet Shiva or even taking a back seat to a more feminine God, who in turn secretly worships _Him_. What Europe or the West must show the (Middle) East is that, in straying so far from that tradition, man has not strayed into the depths, but into the heights. This is not possible; at best, he can show that he has strayed into the heights _as well_ as into the depths--_because_ he has strayed into the depths. Western man must show the world how deeply he has punished himself. But also, secretly, enjoyed himself, precisely in his cruelty against himself. The peak achievement of Western culture has turned out to be its supreme pariah--its _self-enforced_ pariah, yea self-legislated pariah. One way of putting this is a title I entertained recently, "Enlightened Nietzsche and his Darkening Thundercloud". (Perhaps I should change that into "The Enlightened Nietzschean" etc.) The Nietzschean as I conceive him is in a way Europe's Goddess: thus nearing the time at which I first read Nietzsche, I insisted to myself that it's not the girls who should be chased by the guys, but rather the other way round. I insisted that the Poet is a greater source of inspiration than the Muse. And yet I've always worshipped my inner Goddess, be it in the form of a rather feminine God (a Child-God). I've indulged myself in tonal music as no other. But the East is wise in sticking to modal music: for our compassion or self-pity must not impel us to become _activists_--or even pacifists. The wrath of Shiva must not lose itself in insanity.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:44 pm

Last night I wrote a new Barl-post, a new De-Waal pile in the sense of impact-driven piles (a foundation technique). Its initial title was "Droning", which is a reference to my remark that "(i)n Femitheism's ideal society, men would basically be drones", which I made in my "Nietzschean Feminism" thread on Spacefem.com--for which my new post was meant. As I was already thinking of posting a version of that thread's OP here, as a second prequel, I will now post my new post here instead.

::

In the first prequel to my State of the World Address, I spoke of "[a] foundation of men who are entrusted with versing themselves in the meaning (sense!) of [universal human] dignity". This Versing-oneself I will now call Droning.

The supreme Drones of the human race, compared to whom all other Men are disposable, are those whom, in the description of my Nietzschean Übermensch forum, my (inverted) Hindu swastika site, I've called "the true Brahmin". 'Tis my ambition to be a true Brahmin in that Sense.

Why have I these past nineteen years droned on about Nietzsche &c? What trauma, what abortion had I to be to be in need of dreaming like I've done? My Passion is my special Privilege. Long and hard have I sat here, entrenched in Thoughts, hiding from any attempts to save me from myself.

My becoming who or what I am is my coming to terms with my History, my realizing how most fortunate our "unfortunate" "past" has been. Our "past" is not yet past, so long as its extremest consequence has not yet come to pass. This consequence is necessary only inasmuch as the free-will/determinism debate is decided.

I've decided to cut that Gordian knot through this Free Determinism: my Will. There is no necessity, no Need; only Bliss. But as this Bliss is readily perceived as Cruel, it's easily misunderstood as its own opposite. In truth, it's not just the opposite of bliss, but itself bliss.

The word "bliss", though not etymologically related to "blessedness", has been influenced by "blessedness". Interestingly, "blessed", as well as "cruel", can be traced back to a sense of "bloody". As I wrote earlier this summer or Spring:

"A sentiment I had yesterday night was: Enough with all the dogmatism, absolutism, objectivism! Let us show the world that war is the father of all, the king of all! The descendants of the vanquished still smear themselves with blood and pray to the statues of the deified or glorified victors because of the latter's bloody victory (war makes some gods, others men; some slaves, others free)."

This passage contains three implicit citations of Heraclitus. The following may serve as recompense for this indiscretion:

"Spirit is Life which itself cuts into Life: by one's own torment, one's own Wisdom multiplies itself,--did ye already know this?
And the Spirit's Bliss is this: to be anointed and by one's own Tears consecrated as sacrifical animal,--did ye already know this?" (Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, "Of the famous Wise", my translation.)

The Horned God is none other than the indisposably disposable male. I offer myself to the world to dispose of me as it must--come what may! I hereby bless any (transsexual) woman for wanting to slap me in the mouth. What real Man is going to do it?

Who will understand what I've been getting at for years now? I'm a real real man, not simply a real man. I reject the platitudes "real men" need to believe in, because they are at bottom just boys, children frightened by reality. In order not to have their pleasure principle be smothered by the reality principle, they need such sublimations. Which is not to say I myself don't. But precisely because my pleasure principle was marginalized by other boys my age--yet reinforced by my being the eldest among my siblings--, I've become eminently qualified to _fight_ sublimation.

Reality principle + Pleasure principle
=
Repression

Repression + Pleasure principle
=
Sublimation (including Neurosis)

Sublimation + Pleasure principle
=
the Sublation of sublimation

::

The last bit is a reference to my "Dialectics of Repression" OP. Cf. the end of http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2533971#p2533971.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby A Shieldmaiden » Tue Sep 20, 2016 3:49 am

Sauwelios wrote:

Crucial Difference Between Nietzsche and Nazism.


There is none.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:The weak and the failures should perish: first principle of our love of humanity. And they should be helped to do this.

My question.

Why did Nietzsche think he was exempt from this.
The man that walks his own road, walks alone

Old Norse Proverb
User avatar
A Shieldmaiden
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1681
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:13 am

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Sauwelios » Tue Sep 20, 2016 6:26 am

A Shieldmaiden wrote:Sauwelios wrote:

Crucial Difference Between Nietzsche and Nazism.


There is none.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:The weak and the failures should perish: first principle of our love of humanity. And they should be helped to do this.


Are you suggesting that the peoples whom the Nazis decimated were weak and failures?


My question.

Why did Nietzsche think he was exempt from this.


Because he did not think himself weak or a failure.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:26 pm

Like Satyr and others SM cant understand N precisely because she is a nazi.
All weathers are wild, you know what this means? - Odin

Image
There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. - Parodites, 3rd Pentad

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Dorian usurper
 
Posts: 6157
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Pezerocles » Tue Sep 20, 2016 6:23 pm

I am for heretic European spiritualists.

Too much fun.

Same with Jews.
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:12 am

...."Everyday I dream of Nietzsche."......

Image
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:48 pm

The perversion of the Machiavellian-Cartesian conquest of nature is the perversion of a perversion, and _thereby_ a fulfillment.


When I spoke of "[t]he Original Occupy Movement, the Movement of the One, the 1%, the 1 as Opposed to the 0, which in the Beginning We didn't even acknowledge as a concept, a number, a Symbol", I originally wrote "the Movement of the 1", meaning to allude myself to _Brahmavidya: Primordial I_. The Roman 1, the I... "We" is a lie so long as nobody says "I": for then "we" can only be a collective of non-Is... And though it's not a matter of only _saying_ "I", only _doing_ "I" is, again, a lie as long as one doesn't dare say it.

Our society was grounded on the "we" which is a sum of zeroes, or almost-zeroes. But because of its success, the almost-zeroes have grown--like a cancer, threatening to overgrow society. Weeds, and not the one I just vaporized! Making fun of them doesn't help; that rather makes it accepted. Makes what accepted? Idiocy. I will further analyze Western idiocracy for you.

I've often wondered--especially in traffic, thank God--whether many people are really stupid or really anti-social or both. The answer is that there isn't really a difference. Being in busy, "bustling" places means bumping or almost bumping into one another--and all the time in each other's "aura", as "spiritual" people may call it. Society uncivilizes!

When people fly--and not just fly--through each other's "aura" all the time--and note that "aura" like "spirit" etymologically means a movement of _air_--, they get a group-aura--which soon has a brown "colouring", seeing as how many different colours go together in it.

As I was saying, our society was based on the lowest common denominator. But this principle naturally leads to idiocracy (ochlocracy, as the Ancients called it). It leads to the more or less accepted Idiocy of those who _do_ "I" before saying it--and much more than saying it: usually thinking as well, and often even looking!

Our society was based on an idealistic misunderstanding of that phenomenon, that potential reality. This Summer, I wrote: "[W]hat is noble about the man in the street who votes for Trump, or Wilders in the Netherlands (see my 'Nietzsche Contra Wilders' essay), Brexit in the UK, etc. etc.? It's supposedly that he dares say it." But the reality-TV idiots I've spoken of are in principle considered uncivilized trash, and incredulously ridiculed as such. "Civilized" people are supposed not to be selfish, or not to be selfish in such overt ways. But how civilized are most people, anyway? The truth is that most are only _half_ civilized--not to go into more precise fractions.

The two "pure" (ideal, theoretical) paths are the completely instinctive and the completely reflective--leap without thinking and think without leaping, sense your way through the world--life, spacetime--and behold a mere reflection of it in one's mind's eye, respectively.

Classical society was based on the ideal state of those most inclined to the latter. By means of a "noble lie", the most civilized secured the support of the more but not much, much more than half-civilized necessary to suppress the much less than half-civilized. But modern society's "civilized", believing boorishness is better than suppression to quite an extent, if not ultimately, will often rather take the side of the least against the most civilized. For example, it seems high intelligence and high sensitivity are considered a luxury problem compared to being "mentally challenged". Yet will the problems that challenge even (and especially) those most up to that challenge not by definition tend to be more important?
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby phyllo » Thu Sep 22, 2016 4:43 pm

Have you actually done anything which demonstrates that you are not an almost zero? (Besides writing about how great you are.)
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9486
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Sep 22, 2016 4:56 pm

phyllo wrote:Have you actually done anything which demonstrates that you are not an almost zero? (Besides writing about how great you are.)

His writing of these posts already demonstrates that he is not a coward, which makes him infinitely more productive than you, and at least two thirds of this species.

Have you ever done anything of worth on this site? Ever offered a thought or sentiment you actually lived through?

I didnt think so.

Shoo little man.
All weathers are wild, you know what this means? - Odin

Image
There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. - Parodites, 3rd Pentad

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Dorian usurper
 
Posts: 6157
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby phyllo » Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:04 pm

I asked him, not you.

But since you posted, I don't think that you have demonstrated much beyond your own arrogance.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9486
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Sep 25, 2016 5:59 am

YOU ARE RIGHT: MY BHAIRAVA MADNESS IS NOT YET AT AN END; IT HAS ONLY BEGUN.

::

IT IS AN ERROR TO THINK THAT SHIVA IS THE AUSPICIOUS AS OPPOSED TO THE TERRIBLE MANIFESTATION. SHIVA AS OPPOSED TO BHAIRAVA IS ONLY THE PLEASANT AFTERSHOCK--WHICH MEANS NOT THE IMMEDIATE AFTERSHOCK, UNLESS THE FIRST SUGGESTION OF THE SHOCK'S SUBSIDING IS FOR THAT REASON ALREADY PLEASANT....

WHY IS BHAIRAVA HIMSELF A BLESSING? IS HE NOT RATHER THE HARDEST CURSE, THE ACTUAL BRANDING OF THE VETO HE ENFORCES? WELL, WHAT WOULD THERE BE APART FROM HIS GREAT CRIME? [THE BRITISH SO POLITELY SAY "WHAT SHOULD THERE BE"--BUT THIS "THOU SHALT" EXISTS ONLY BY VIRTU OF A WILL, THE ACTUAL MANIFESTATION OF A WOULD.]

ONCE MEN WILLED THE WORLD TO BE THE WAY IT THEREBY BECAME. WHERE ARE THOSE MEN, THE EQUIVALENTS OF THOSE MEN, TODAY? WHERE ARE THE MEN WHO DO NOT HATE OUR HISTORY--NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO TEPID TO BE CAPABLE OF TRULY HATING, BUT BECAUSE THEIR TRUE HATE--WHICH IS WELL-NIGH INFINITELY BETTER THAN FAKED LOVE--CULMINATES IN THE TRUE LOVE OF OUR HISTORY, THE WILL TO MAKE IT ALL HAPPEN AGAIN--

?

ON SOME LEVEL THE EASIEST PART OF OUR HISTORY TO EMBRACE--FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT BE SUITED TO EMBRACE IT--IS THE HOMERIC AGE: ACTUAL BLOODSHED, AS OPPOSED TO THE IMAGINED JUDGMENT OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE LIKE. BUT WE ALSO NEED TO EMBRACE THE CHRISTIAN AGE, AND EVEN THE MODERN ONE. WELL THEN!! HOW CAN WE BETTER DO ALL THAT THAN EMBRACING _OURSELVES_, BECAUSE IT HAS MADE US POSSIBLE? YET WE ARE, BY THE MOST PREVALENT STANDARD, THE MOST UNLIKELY CREATURES TO DO SO. DOESN'T OUR SPEAKING ALOUD ABOUT _ANYTHING_, OUR SPEAKING UP TO MAKE OUR VOCES BE HEARD, SOUND LIKE "GOLLUM" TO THE EARS OF OUR REALITY PRINCIPLE? HELL IS OTHER PEOPLE: THE HELL WE BEAR ON OUR MINDS IS OUR CONSCIENCE, THE SUPEREGO WHICH IS THE INTERNALIZED SUM OF THE POWERS THAT BE, THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE THERE. LONG MUST WE REPRESS WHAT WE ARE, OUR PUBERTY IS ONLY THE BUDDING OF OUR MATURATION: AND AT LEAST SOME OF US ARE LITERALLY NIPPED IN THE BUD--LITERALLY LITERALLY, AS LITERAL AS IT GETS. IN FACT, SOME OF US DO IT THEMSELVES...

TO WHOM IT MAY APPEAL, I POST THESE TOUGHTS. I WAS TAUGHT QUITE AN AUGHT BY THE WORKS I ROUD.

IN BARL SCHOOL, I LEARNED TO REGARD TACITVS AS THE GREATEST PROSE WRITING. I THEN FOUND HIS PEERS IN NIETZSCHE.

TACITUS EST LAGUZ MEI FUNDUS.

OF SWEET WATER, A GREAT LAKE. MUST THE BROOK NOW FINALLY BECOME AN OCEAN, EMBRACING THE EARTH? [EEN BEEKJE...] WILL THAT NOT SALT AND THEREBY SPOIL IT? NOT IF IT BECOMES AN OCEAN IN BROAD DAYLIGHT, BRIGHT SUNLIGHT, STARTING THE CYCLE ANEW BY VAPORIZING IT.

IN THE NAME OF THE MOUNTAIN BROOK, I SUMMON THE SUN GOD TO THE MODERN OCEAN, THE GLOBALIZING WEST. THAT GOD IS THE WAR GOD, SHOOTING HIS ARROWS TO ALL SIDES. ARES IS THE PRIMORDIAL EROS: HE SETS ALL THE WORLD ON FIRE WITH HIS COLD. HE IS BEYOND COOL: GIVING FAR MORE THAN A CHILL, BRINGING DEATH AND DISEASE AS WELL.

BUT 'TIS THE STILLEST WORDS THAT BRING THE STORM. WHO WILL READ THIS ALL-CAPS POST? WHO IS NOBLY BARBARIAN ENOUGH TO BESIEGE WALLS THIS HIGH AND THICK? THUS I CAN SAFELY SPEAK PLAINLY HERE.

GOOD AND EVIL, MALE AND FEMALE. THE MASCULINE CAN ONLY BE GOOD TO THE FEMININE BY BEING THE CONDITION OF THE FEMININE. SO EVIL IS GOOD AND GOOD IS BAD, ONLY EVIL CAN MAKE THE BAD GOOD. THE BAD MAKES THE EVIL GOOD BY BEING MADE GOOD BY THE EVIL; THE BAD MAKES THE GOOD CHOOSE TO BE EVIL IN ORDER TO MAKE THE BAD GOOD.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Sep 25, 2016 7:26 am

Why Tacitus?
And what?

With me it was Ovidius.
All weathers are wild, you know what this means? - Odin

Image
There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. - Parodites, 3rd Pentad

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Dorian usurper
 
Posts: 6157
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:04 am

Fixed Cross wrote:Why Tacitus?
And what?

With me it was Ovidius.


Ovidius is not prose. :wink:

It was from Tacitus' Annals. I distinctly remember the phrase "gravior atque atrocior". Can't really explain why, except that, next to Livy--who wrote of similar content in a similar form--, Tacitus seemed a master of everything I'd learned in class. His form just seemed perfectly self-contained, like Nietzsche wrote of Horace. And I remember he was pret-ty sharp--again like Nietzsche.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re Statement, Re Address, Re World.

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:31 am

Sauwelios wrote:The perversion of the Machiavellian-Cartesian conquest of nature is the perversion of a perversion, and _thereby_ a fulfillment.


It seems I forgot to indicate that the (working) title of the post that began with this clarification was "Re Statement, Re Address, Re World."
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby A Shieldmaiden » Tue Sep 27, 2016 5:06 am

Sauwelios wrote:

Crucial Difference Between Nietzsche and Nazism.

SM wrote:

There is none.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:The weak and the failures should perish: first principle of our love of humanity. And they should be helped to do this.

Sauwelios wrote:

Are you suggesting that the peoples whom the Nazis decimated were weak and failures?


How extraordinary, if you cannot recognise that the ideal society of Hitler wasn't really that different from that of Nietzsche, as both held an overall elitist attitude, which probably explains the type of person who is attracted to his philosophy.

It is not the mass that invents and not the majority that organizes or thinks, but in all things only and always the individual man, the person.
-- Adolf Hitler

The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and spiritually similar beings. This preservation comprises first of all existence as a race, and thereby permits free development of all the forces dormant in this race.
-- Adolf Hitler

The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude...
-- Adolf Hitler

Thus, in principle, it [national socialism] embraces the basic principle of Nature and believes in the validity of this law down to the last individual. It sees not only the different value of races, but also the different value of individual men. From the mass it extracts the importance of the person, and thus, in contrast to Marxism with its disorganizing effect, it acts in an organizing way.-- Adolf Hitler

Nietzsche never quite spelled out what he meant by Übermensch/The Superman did he. For Heidegger and others, it represented humanity that transcended itself, whilst for the Nazis it became a distinctive image of the master race.

My main dissatisfaction with N was his damaged attitude towards women, probably due to his failed love affair with Lou Salome, which inflamed his insulting slapping down of women. No doubt he was a complex man, but a man I find difficult, if not impossible, to use as a mentor or seek as an example of the so called 'Superman'. Which in itself is ludicrous to begin with.

"So dangerous are women that they must be pressed back into the cage of nineteenth-century Apollonian's chauvinism".

That says it all.
The man that walks his own road, walks alone

Old Norse Proverb
User avatar
A Shieldmaiden
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1681
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:13 am

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Sauwelios » Tue Sep 27, 2016 5:45 am

You're a terrible quoter. What's the source of those Hitler quotes, for example? And that last quote is an inaccurate quote from page 373 of Julian Young's Friedrich Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography (a terrible book, judging from that page. You got the "Apollonian's" from the preceding sentences).
Value Philosophy: First philosophy is the positing of the metaphysics one values the most.
Value Metaphysics: Being is essentially Self-Valuing: beings exist inasmuch as they value themselves.
Value Axiology: Valuation is a rational value, as the disvaluation of it would disvalue itself, too.
Value Logic: Logic's self-identical "A" is a value, and not necessarily a fact.
Value Ethics: It is just to consider things just, and unjust to consider things unjust.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby A Shieldmaiden » Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:05 am

You're a terrible quoter. What's the source of those Hitler quotes, for example?


Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, My Struggle

And that last quote is an inaccurate quote from page 373 of Julian Young's Friedrich Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography (a terrible book, judging from that page. You got the "Apollonian's" from the preceding sentences).


It is widely acknowledged that N adopted the same misogynistic imagery of Arthur Schopenhauer's "On Women", which is notorious for denouncing the women of Germany.

You choose not to acknowledge the man's obvious shortcomings.
The man that walks his own road, walks alone

Old Norse Proverb
User avatar
A Shieldmaiden
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1681
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:13 am

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Sauwelios » Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:40 am

A Shieldmaiden wrote:
You're a terrible quoter. What's the source of those Hitler quotes, for example?


Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, My Struggle


Oops, I guess I should read up on "my Hitler"!


And that last quote is an inaccurate quote from page 373 of Julian Young's Friedrich Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography (a terrible book, judging from that page. You got the "Apollonian's" from the preceding sentences).


It is widely acknowledged that N adopted the same misogynistic imagery of Arthur Schopenhauer's "On Women", which is notorious for denouncing the women of Germany.

You choose not to acknowledge the man's obvious shortcomings.


"It is widely acknowledged"... I have read quite a bit from Schopenhauer on women, incidentally, and though there are certainly strong similarities, there are also very strong differences. Schopenhauer inveighs against women; Nietzsche is ever the gentleman.

I do not just not consider Nietzsche's stance toward women to be a shortcoming; I've always regarded it as something most fundamental and most praiseworthy about his philosophy! Consider this thread, for example: https://beta.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/human_superhuman/conversations/topics/241
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Sauwelios » Tue Sep 27, 2016 9:16 am

Here's an excerpt from a private conversation I recently had on Facebook (only from my side of the dialogue):

::

The mainstream religion is now secular humanism which is somehow believed to be supported by science.

Faith means different things for Protestants and Catholics.
Thomas More, for example, was a Humanist and a Catholic. He chose death over forced conversion to Anglicanism (a hybrid form of Protestantism and Catholicism). Protestantism, in which every man is his own priest, quite naturally leads to Humanism, where every man decides for himself what religion (if any) he practices.

I think sex (or "gender") difference is the one to focus on these days. Controversial, but not like racism. I also think it's (one of) the most fundamental natural human inequality/-ies. Men _choosing_ to be "disposable": that's like a noble kind of martyrdom, which may actually regain men the respect they used to get.
Christianity can even be justified (historically) in this context. "Only creative reason, which in the crucified God is manifested as love, can really show us the way." (Pope Ratzinger.) Is the voluntarily "disposable" male not the epitome of creative reason manifesting as love?

Yeah, Christianity is a major historical manifestation of "the Patriarchy", man!

And it was the White Male Protestant who led the West (and thereby the globe) to secular humanism, feminism, etc.
All that can be seen as a great self-sacrifice by the "disposable" male--not to mention the white male...

The "disease" Liberal Protestantism can be construed as a noble self-misunderstanding. Men like us now realize that it's an error, that the most beneficent act would consist of the reinstatement of Patriarchy.
A new Aryan subordination of the indigenous Goddess (Moody spoke of the Black Goddess counter to Graves' White Goddess. I'll try to find some of Moody's posts on the Super-White-Man for you).

::

By "Aryan" I was also distinctly thinking of definitions like this one:

"Aryan - a civilized follower of Vedic culture; one whose goal is spiritual advancement." (Prabhupada, Bhagavad-gita As It Is, Glossary.)

The division of the human race into males and females is of course much, much deeper than into the various races: the former antedates even the emergence of hominid species by far.

Here's an excerpt from the thread of which I was especially thinking when I spoke of "some of Moody's posts" etc. (the square brackets and typos are Moody's own):

::

Goethe's contention that the Feminine draws us upward is frequently ridiculed by Nietzsche. No, the dark-drives of White-Woman draw us *down*; the Superwhiteman [Zarathusra], disdaing the womanish, must climb to the *solitary* heights where the air is clear and all that is smells feminine and sphinxlike is far below.

The constant danger to the Higher White Man is actually related to the White Woman; it is this - that the Higher White Man may become extinct.

We know from Nietzsche that [White]Woman is a danger [immediate image of the blonde blue-eyed Lou von Salome] to the Super-White-Man.

The Zarathustran White Man is told endlessly by Nietzsche that he must seek solitude.
He takes his six solitudes [inbetween down-goings] before his final seventh solitude which is [White] Death.

Can you not see what a danger to the *White Race* this Solitude is?

How can the White Race be reproduced by its finest speciemens [SuperWhiteMen and Women] if the White Man has to flee the sphinxations of the White Woman!

And also, by her Darkness, White Woman actually flouts her Whiteness.

Disgust, disgust.

So the Zarathustrian Whiteman is in constant danger of being overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of the mediocre, the prodigeous and gregarious many-too-many. Hic niger est, as Nietzsche quotes from Horace.

To that end, what he calls the "hope of a Pure European Race" must be engendered by Eugenics.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby perpetualburn » Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:27 pm

A Shieldmaiden wrote:My main dissatisfaction with N was his damaged attitude towards women, probably due to his failed love affair with Lou Salome, which inflamed his insulting slapping down of women. No doubt he was a complex man, but a man I find difficult, if not impossible, to use as a mentor or seek as an example of the so called 'Superman'. Which in itself is ludicrous to begin with.

"So dangerous are women that they must be pressed back into the cage of nineteenth-century Apollonian's chauvinism".

That says it all.


Compared to Shakespeare, Nietzsche's treatment of women is mild. And yet everyone, women included, adore Shakespeare, while castigating Nietzsche for his so called "misogyny."
perpetualburn
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:57 am

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Pezerocles » Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:40 pm

perpetualburn wrote:Compared to Shakespeare, Nietzsche's treatment of women is mild. And yet everyone, women included, adore Shakespeare, while castigating Nietzsche for his so called "misogyny."


Shakespeare was more generous in his ascribing of power. To call a power terrible is very much not to belittle it.

In Nietzsche's case, the day I read a woman, or man for that matter, write at his level, I'll take their opinion on his misowhatever. But it also seems a stretch to say that the man who equated all of philosophy with a woman hates women.
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby perpetualburn » Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:06 pm

Pezerocles wrote:Shakespeare was more generous in his ascribing of power.


How so?
perpetualburn
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:57 am

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Pezerocles » Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:49 pm

Everything in Shakespeare ultimately hinges upon the whims of women.
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby perpetualburn » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:53 am

Pezerocles wrote:Everything in Shakespeare ultimately hinges upon the whims of women.


http://shakespeare.mit.edu/Poetry/LoversComplaint.html
perpetualburn
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:57 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users